It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 459
31
<< 456  457  458    460  461  462 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





So what? How on earth is that proof for your crazy claims?

You are using the argument from ignorance and argument from complexity again.
It is possible that all life is related, just not in the way that evolution thinks it is. From a creation point of view, it is possible.




posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





So what? How on earth is that proof for your crazy claims?

You are using the argument from ignorance and argument from complexity again.
It is possible that all life is related, just not in the way that evolution thinks it is. From a creation point of view, it is possible.


Well...the creation point of view isn't based on logic and has ZERO objective evidence behind it. So if you believe in that nonsense, you might just as well believe in unicorns...because after all, those are "possible" as well



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Those are far from what I would consider disgigurement, there is obviously order of some type.
What the hell is disgigurement? And explain why you will not address the points I made?


But even in those examples I'll bet you still find order and semitry to design.
What has that to do with your original statement or my reply to it?


I was being sarscastic, the only excuse is that there is intelligence or creation behind them.
Are your trying to sell the old being sarcastic cherry. I am not in the market to buy it. as usual your reply is Fake, dishonest and typically you.


Well of course it is, survival of the fittest,
Your usual display of ignorance. It is nothing to do with survival of the fittest.


anyone with half a brain knows that if something isn't going to make it, it's not going to make it.
No point in expecting you to understand it then as you are under qualified.


The problem is this says nothing about creating new life.
And why would it? Evolution has nothing to say on the subject of creation and neither do I. When will that sink in?


The difference between you and I is that there are things your considering or assuming to be common place not allowing species to survive, and I'm saying they are not natural.
There are many differences between you and I. I am honest, you are not. I answer questions you do not. I try to enter into an honest debate you do your utmost to avoid any debate. That is the short list so please stop comparing me to you as I find it insulting.


Here I am supposedly 12 and I can see that everything is supposed to have a specific diet.
Ok then 8 to 10 and in the low IQ range of that group.


You also asknowledge the fact that we are in the 6th largest extinction.
With the reading ability of a 5 year old. I asked you to provide evidence of your claim instead you provide a lie.


Maybe, just maybe wouldn't you think some things no longer have food and have stepped on others food menu?
Jeeze your poor use of English borders on the creepy.


There is this simple equation of whats called supply and demand. There is no way that you can believe that any species is suppposed to just eat whatever it wants.
What a truly daft statement.


I was looking for a credible link.
Yeah, yeah. The sad thing is I was looking for a credible response but it seems you are incapable so why bother.


Either way, its a limitation which means that evolution could not render a three headed human if it wanted to, which means evoution is NOT random and your agreeing with this.
Don’t tell me what I am agreeing with. Answer my point Pinocchio.


Quit being a stoop, you know damn good and well that yahoo answers is NOT a credible source anymore than ATS is.
You did not do as I asked and also read the links the responder provided did you? Who cares anyhow as you would never understand what was being explained due to your ignorance and denial.


So you believe there is more random than pattern.
Again Pinocchio you tell me what I believe instead of addressing my points. You are a complete waste of time and effort


Nevermind that millions of species breath air, and millions more live in water.
Can you explain what 'air' is? Your sloppy use of the English language reflects your sloppy lazy mind. Ill informed ignorance based judgments and generalisations. Absolutely pathetic.


Why is it we never hear about a human baby not making it into this world because he is suppose to breath amonia rather than air?
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Can your asinine questions get any worse?


I see more pattern than I do randomness.
Who gives a dam. I certainly don’t.

You know. Your very low level of understanding of this world. Your incapacity to learn or understand. Your total lack of ability to read or spell coupled with a compulsion to lie and pursue a dishonest path is very boring. You have nothing new and have never had anything of value to offer. Can you guess what this means?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Well...the creation point of view isn't based on logic and has ZERO objective evidence behind it. So if you believe in that nonsense, you might just as well believe in unicorns...because after all, those are "possible" as well
It's not so much a question of whats possible as it is whats not possible.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Well...the creation point of view isn't based on logic and has ZERO objective evidence behind it. So if you believe in that nonsense, you might just as well believe in unicorns...because after all, those are "possible" as well
It's not so much a question of whats possible as it is whats not possible.


Well then, what exactly is wrong?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



So here is the big question that I'm sort of baffled over.
You show you are baffled by many questions and incapable of any honest answers


You claim that there seems to be absolute randomness in all of the life here on earth.
Nope. You claim that instead of reading what I write which is a futile pursuit.


Yet when I look at them I find shocking simularitys, at least in land species....
The majority has two eyes, four limbs, a nose, a head, two ears, one mouth etc...
(yawns) yeah, yeah shocking. Why do you think that is then?


Aquatic life also has patterns but they don't match with land species. So my big question to you is if there is so much pattern how do you explain it if evoltuion is suppose to be bases on random selection?
They don’t match what. What aquatic life as it is a big group. Oh the random thing again (Yawns) I refer you back to my previous answers.


Natural selection could explain how certain things were kept the same way but the problem is that there are things that could have been better.
Oh dear what like eggs and bacon could grow on trees or farts could smell of lavender?


For example, humans with webbed feet as we do live on a predominantly water planet.
My god, I was joking but you are serious and come up with an even madder suggestion



How about wings to fly as we seem to be relying on trucking and transportation to bring us the large selection of food we require.
(Shakes head in complete disbelief)


Looking at adaptation, dont you agree that adaptation would not be needed had we of evolved correctly to begin with?
Oh my. You need to step away from your keyboard and go lay down


Seriously answer this as its a solid fact, you claim that natural selection makes sure that the advantage survives, you said that yourself. So if thats true, why do we rely so much on adaptation?
Because our environment is in constant flux. These changes select for advantage it is that simple but still way above your understanding.


Often to the point that it's redundant. Which leaves you with only two choices of how things have happened.
Your use of redundant is not accepted in the context you use it no matter how you try to sneak it in.


One is that we evolved so fast that adaptation was needed to fill in something that evolution could not, which I highly don't agree with, its like saying that evolution failed.
Another is that we never evolved to begin with and adaptation just so happens to be a trait we have.
I reject your two choices and refer you back to over 450 pages


The bottom line is that they are contradictions of each other, you surely don't need both, and to have both would imply that one is not working. Why do we adapt so much if we supposedly evolved? Your either admitting that we sucked at evolving, and didn't evolve correctly or your admitting adaptation just happened to be a trait we picked up for the hell of it.
Complete ignorant twaddle. Opinion formed from that ignorance and a refusal to understand anything of the world you live in.


Now you claimed yourself that only the advantages win in evolution, so please explain to me the adavantage of having evolved when we have adaptation, or why we would need adaptation if we supposedly evolved.
If you wish to understand evolution I refer you back to these 450 pages and suggest you use Google.


If you claim that our ability to adapt came after evolving, then you are admitting that evolution failed us.
I tire of you making a stupidity based comment and claiming it is something I am admitting when you avoid answering, addressing or debating any point I do make. (Yawns) What am I going to admit next I wonder?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Those are far from what I would consider disgigurement, there is obviously order of some type.

What the hell is disgigurement? And explain why you will not address the points I made?
Sorry that was suppose to be disfigurement, and I am addressing them.




But even in those examples I'll bet you still find order and semitry to design.

What has that to do with your original statement or my reply to it?
Your claiming there is more randomness then there is patterns.




Well of course it is, survival of the fittest,

Your usual display of ignorance. It is nothing to do with survival of the fittest.
You said it yourself, only the good advantages survive.




The problem is this says nothing about creating new life.

And why would it? Evolution has nothing to say on the subject of creation and neither do I. When will that sink in?
I was under the assumption that you feel that all of the life on this planet as we know it evolved from one another, am I wrong.




You also asknowledge the fact that we are in the 6th largest extinction.

With the reading ability of a 5 year old. I asked you to provide evidence of your claim instead you provide a lie.


Are We in the Middle of a Sixth Mass Extinction?




Maybe, just maybe wouldn't you think some things no longer have food and have stepped on others food menu?

Jeeze your poor use of English borders on the creepy.
Most of mine is just my typing, I know exactly what you mean though, sometimes when I read yours I realize that english couldn't be your primary language.




Yeah, yeah. The sad thing is I was looking for a credible response but it seems you are incapable so why bother.
Then I gave an equivalent response.




Either way, its a limitation which means that evolution could not render a three headed human if it wanted to, which means evoution is NOT random and your agreeing with this.

Don’t tell me what I am agreeing with. Answer my point Pinocchio.
Your inadvertinatly admitting that evolution can't create all forms of life, it's greatly limited, yet we have such a diverse list, how could it have happened, because it sure wasn't by evolution.




Quit being a stoop, you know damn good and well that yahoo answers is NOT a credible source anymore than ATS is.

You did not do as I asked and also read the links the responder provided did you? Who cares anyhow as you would never understand what was being explained due to your ignorance and denial.
Then why didn't you post the link?




Again Pinocchio you tell me what I believe instead of addressing my points. You are a complete waste of time and effort
That was actually a question Japedo.




Can you explain what 'air' is? Your sloppy use of the English language reflects your sloppy lazy mind. Ill informed ignorance based judgments and generalisations. Absolutely pathetic.
Oh they are general are they? Well then you should have no problem giving a reason why 2 atmospheres dominate this planet with life, yet I see you giving no explanation. Because you can't think of one that doesn't prove the pattern is larger than your willing to admit. Such an incredulous littlle dishonest person.




Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Can your asinine questions get any worse?
It was just a vague point but it managed to work because you admitted that patterns are present a lot more than your willing to admitt.




Who gives a dam. I certainly don’t.

You know. Your very low level of understanding of this world. Your incapacity to learn or understand. Your total lack of ability to read or spell coupled with a compulsion to lie and pursue a dishonest path is very boring. You have nothing new and have never had anything of value to offer. Can you guess what this means?
Well you should Japedo, because it means your wrong, and life here is not random like you would like to pretend that it is, life has a patter, a very prominate pattern.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Well then, what exactly is wrong?
Evolution is whats wrong, there are to many flaws in this theory.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You show you are baffled by many questions and incapable of any honest answers
Your the one spitting out lies on here, trying to convince others that species don't need to eat a proper diet, they can jus eat what ever is available.




Nope. You claim that instead of reading what I write which is a futile pursuit.
You either agree or you don't, which is it Japedo.




(yawns) yeah, yeah shocking. Why do you think that is then?
Well it sure in the hell isn't because they evolved.

There is a pattern because of another reason, yet there is vast differences between species.




My god, I was joking but you are serious and come up with an even madder suggestion
I don't see us as losing our wings as an advantage, and you clearly stated that the advantages win.




Oh my. You need to step away from your keyboard and go lay down
Evolve or adapt, its the golden question, which is the answer?




Because our environment is in constant flux. These changes select for advantage it is that simple but still way above your understanding.
But wait a minute, nothing else on this planet adapts like we do, so are you saying that only OUR enviroment is in a constant flux? And what exactly does that say about evolution? Is it failing us?




Your use of redundant is not accepted in the context you use it no matter how you try to sneak it in.
Your answer is redundantly rejected.




I tire of you making a stupidity based comment and claiming it is something I am admitting when you avoid answering, addressing or debating any point I do make. (Yawns) What am I going to admit next I wonder?
That you do nothing but lie still when your put on the spot and can't give an honest answer. It's ok, doing so would show defeat anyhow.

The bottom line is that they are contradictions of each other, you surely don't need both, and to have both would imply that one is not working. Why do we adapt so much if we supposedly evolved? Your either admitting that we sucked at evolving, and didn't evolve correctly or your admitting adaptation just happened to be a trait we picked up for the hell of it.

Now you claimed yourself that only the advantages win in evolution, so please explain to me the adavantage of having evolved when we have adaptation, or why we would need adaptation if we supposedly evolved.

If you claim that our ability to adapt came after evolving, then you are admitting that evolution failed us.

It is best that you avoid answering these as it sure would be embarrasing for evolution.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   





posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Do you know how ignorant this statement is? of course not, otherwise you would not have written it.
Try putting on your big boy pants we are talking about real science, not comic book characters
So now your trying to admitt that evolution is NOT random.


No... I was pointing out how ignorant your statement is.



The patterns which are consistant break up the idea of evolution. We never see species, at least not groups of them, with three or four heads, which would be something that evolution would offer, should offer.


In case you missed it..
I was pointing out how ignorant your statement is.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
In other news... The University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg today announced the discovery of a skeleton of an early human ancestor Australopithecus sediba. The most complete early human ancestor skeleton ever discovered.
Sediba


edit on 13-7-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Well then, what exactly is wrong?
Evolution is whats wrong, there are to many flaws in this theory.


Yet somehow you can't seem to be able to present us with a single example



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Your claiming there is more randomness then there is patterns.
Oh I see you are telling me what I am claiming again. Quote where I made that claim or shut it.


You said it yourself, only the good advantages survive.
First did not say good advantage, Just advantage the good you added because you have a child’s view of life. Second, that does not mean survival of the fittest. I refer you back to 450 pages


I was under the assumption that you feel that all of the life on this planet as we know it evolved from one another, am I wrong.
Why do you then go on to factor in creation when it has nothing to do with creation?


Are We in the Middle of a Sixth Mass Extinction?
You'll have to remind me of what point you were making



Most of mine is just my typing, I know exactly what you mean though, sometimes when I read yours I realize that english couldn't be your primary language.
I don’t doubt that. With your displayed reading age I expect all words look like a foreign language to you.


Your inadvertinatly admitting that evolution can't create all forms of life,
Oh here you go again telling me what I am admitting. I have told you too many times. EVOLUTION DOES NOT CREATE LIFE. IT CAN'T CREATE ANY LIFE FORM. Evolution is a word that describes a process of how life evolves resulting in the diversity we see around us today and in the fossil records


it's greatly limited, yet we have such a diverse list, how could it have happened, because it sure wasn't by evolution.
Ah the thread topic. So if it was not evolution explain the diversity we se around us today without referring to it.


Then why didn't you post the link?
The link was provided. The instruction to follow the other links after reading it was made clear. This was so someone with your low level of education could be lead gently towards the information you needed. Obviously I overestimated your level of comprehension and education. Can you even have an IQ that is a fraction?


Oh they are general are they? Well then you should have no problem giving a reason why 2 atmospheres dominate this planet with life, yet I see you giving no explanation. Because you can't think of one that doesn't prove the pattern is larger than your willing to admit. Such an incredulous littlle dishonest person.
Please tell me you are just playing thick
You stated animals breathe air or in water. If you don’t see why that is sloppy and incorrect then you are not just playing thick.


It was just a vague point but it managed to work because you admitted that patterns are present a lot more than your willing to admitt.
Oh yet again you say I am admitting something only you would be stupid enough to say. Your asinine comment:


Why is it we never hear about a human baby not making it into this world because he is suppose to breath amonia rather than air?
my reply: 'Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Can your asinine questions get any worse?'

So now tell me how you get me admitting to some nonsense about patterns from that



Well you should Japedo, because it means your wrong, and life here is not random like you would like to pretend that it is, life has a patter, a very prominate pattern.
Oh the random and the pattern thing continues. I stand by my original comment. I dont give a dam about your unsupported low brow nonsense.


edit on 13-7-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Your the one spitting out lies on here, trying to convince others that species don't need to eat a proper diet, they can jus eat what ever is available.
Here you go again. Telling me what I am saying when the actual words and nonsense are yours


You either agree or you don't, which is it Japedo.
It is still 'Nope. You claim that instead of reading what I write which is a futile pursuit'


I don't see us as losing our wings as an advantage, and you clearly stated that the advantages win.
Hold up sonny. Where did that come from? You originally suggested:


How about wings to fly as we seem to be relying on trucking and transportation to bring us the large selection of food we require
But now you seem to be claiming that we lost our wings?
I mean
Hello! You do realise we never had wings? All you just wrote is, well just total nonsense


Evolve or adapt, its the golden question, which is the answer?
I refer you back to the 450 pages


But wait a minute, nothing else on this planet adapts like we do, so are you saying that only OUR enviroment is in a constant flux?
No supporting evidence from you. No further comment from me.


Your answer is redundantly rejected.
Yeah right, spot on but you don’t even know why



The bottom line is that they are contradictions of each other, you surely don't need both, and to have both would imply that one is not working.
Your problem is and it’s a biggy. Your two options and your tripe below are meaningless. Based on ignorance and defended by dishonesty.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Evolution is the differential reproduction of nucleotides. We don't have webbed feet because the webbed feet mutation never happened. And if it did its chances of becoming fixed are 1/14billion, unless there is some selective advantage (the webbed feet mutation either directly affects sperm viability as well, or women find it attractive), and in that case its chances of becoming fixed would be increased proportional to its selective advantage. To reach a point of fixation it would take thousands or millions of years, depending on the degree of selection and environmental contingency (a parasite wiped out half the human population, nuclear war, asteroid, etc...)

Selective advantage means a trait on average corresponds to a higher probability of having more children than one would otherwise have without the trait.

Body plans were worked out in the early stages of evolution. The evidence for this is the HOX genes that are shared across the animal kingdom. These are the body plans of an organisms, and at the molecular level are laid out in a linear fashion (shoulder, arm, hand, fingers, etc...), and the variety between organisms is a by-product of mere expression of one sequence of nucleotides over another. Mutations to these can be fatal, and are most likely why 65% of mammalian zygotes are spontaneously aborted. In insects, though, weird creatures are often born (in fruit flies, sometimes a mutation to the "eyeless" gene can lead to an eye that grows on the antenna, this is just one of thousands of examples).

Adaptation is a broad term that describes an organisms life cycle and the overall life span of a particular species. An organisms flexibility is obviously a product of natural selection, and the adaptation of species over longer time frames describe how mutations were selected for with the changing environment, for example the white coat of bears that moved to the arctic. First a mutation happened that lead to one bear appearing slightly more white than the other bears of his group. There was a selective advantage for that trait, thus the mutation spread, and millions of years later we call those bears polar bears.

How do we know this happened? Well again, its conjecture, just like the theory of gravity is based on conjecture. Fortunately, there is more evidence for evolution than gravity. There has never been another mechanism found to explain bio-diversity other than the mutation of nucleotides and differential reproduction. This is the thread title, can you come up with another mechanism to explain bio-diversity?

edit on 13-7-2012 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


Well, according to tooth's "f### logic" approach to science, aliens did it



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


This is what I mean by jumping to conclusions.

It clearly states that ....


believed to be the remains of ‘Karabo’


www.wits.ac.za...

In other words, they aren't sure.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Yet somehow you can't seem to be able to present us with a single example
Well just recently I sent you a link so you could see for yourself that a prodigious savant proves our brains can work better. You ran an hid, didn't see you reply to it or acknowledge it at all. Typical.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I know I long ago said I wouldn't post in this thread but I figured I'd correct you on your claims regarding prodigious savants. A prodigious savant still has cognitive deficits. The reason they are called prodigious savants is because their abilities would be astonishing even in someone with a fully functioning brain. At any given time there are less than 100 prodigious savants on the planet. Every person on the savant spectrum has some kind of mental defect. In fact researchers are finding that a common link between all these people is a dysfunction in the left hemisphere of the brain. Some researchers have specifically traced it to dysfunction in the left temporal lobe that is then made up for by enhanced function in the posterior neocortex.

The savant syndrome: an extraordinary condition. A synopsis: past, present, future



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 456  457  458    460  461  462 >>

log in

join